TONY BURKE, Minister for Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry replies to GRAEME WELLS, School of Economics and Finance, University of Tasmania. The government carefully considers all proposal for assistance to forestry ...

A profoundly engaging and in depth reply from the Minister! That the Minister sees no problem in using 5 year old economic data about a project for which the variables likely to impact on its financial outcomes have changed so significantly is beyond me. One cant help but be cynical and assume that this minister who openly admits his bias towards the project just went looking for the most impressive figures he could find, regardless of their continuing relevance.

Posted by pilko on 01/09/09 at 12:39 PM

According to Burke ‘The Australian Government supports Gunns Limited’s proposed pulp mill.’ That makes them accomplices to the corruption that accompanied the state assessment. We know Burke is not quite a full six pack, but how does he get his head around an assessment done by a pulp mill builder that has worked with the company selling Gunns the mill?

People like Burke give Labor, The Government and politicians a bad name with their mediocre reasoning and non-existent ethical standards.

Posted by no pulp mill on 01/09/09 at 01:14 PM

You’re right again Pilko!

I wrote to this Minister detailing the distortions created by subsidising one type of land use, pointing out the need for food compared to our need for trees. I received a reply written by his forestry bureaucrats which basically told me that forestry interests had presented information that supported their case and, since that information contradicted my own, I was perforce wrong!

An excellent example of representing the public.

Posted by Mike Bolan on 01/09/09 at 02:24 PM

We have a Tasmanian-quality minister in Mr Burke, untroubled by this benighted state being the only place in the developed world currently seeking to build a kraft pulp mill. It will, moreover be one of the three biggest in the world, and the only mega-mill to be fed primarily by native forest for as long as it lasts.

With global warming inevitably becoming the monster political issue, one can only marvel at the magnitude of both the venality and stupidity required to explain Federal Labor’s support for this giant scam.

John Hayward

Posted by john hayward on 01/09/09 at 03:20 PM

At least this reply comes from someone pretending to be Minister Burke. How many of you out there have written to Burke and received a reply from Forestry Tasmania?

A flickering candle is brighter than this bloke.

Posted by Bob McMahon on 01/09/09 at 04:57 PM

Come on young Rachel! Let’s read all about it!

Posted by Mike Adams on 01/09/09 at 05:19 PM

Heaven help this little island and all of the little people hurt by this monstrous proposal when a Labor federal minister sticks to the Tas Forestry line.

Posted by Phil Lohrey on 01/09/09 at 06:59 PM

Yeah I’m not surprised Mike. Would one get a better return for their time and effort by standing in front of a brick wall and chanting blah dadi blah blah blah blah. I answering a rhetorical yes.

Posted by pilko on 01/09/09 at 07:16 PM

In the past I have given Kevin Rudd the highest accolades for his ability and capacity to take on the greatest spin-merchant of all time.
Do remember the time when Howard and Lennon did a deal to trounce Mark Latham’s bid for Prime Minister.
(From the Tasmanian peoples perspective.)

For Kevin Rudd to follow the piping tune of Gunns Ltd and Forestry Tasmania, is enough to alter the praise toward our Kevin, from high to abhorrent.

How can so many supposed highly intelligent people get transfixed into supporting the vile, the destructive, the pure mindless greed, of that which is against the best interests of all Australia’s people?
This despicable Tasmanian forestry industry shows its absolute wicked intent in even misleading the highest levels of Australia’s government!

Posted by William Boeder on 01/09/09 at 08:01 PM

Remember this - it will be the same person writing the replies even if the Liberals get in!

Posted by Gerry Mander on 01/09/09 at 10:21 PM

Burke says the ‘difference in figures arise from various assumptions’ - would some of those assumptions include data being based on pure fiction?

As for ‘commercially viable in it’s own right’, does that mean no federal grants or subsidies? The mill has no chance of ever being commercially viable in it’s own right, (Gunns wouldn’t be building the mill if those were the terms) so what use is that statement?

Posted by salamander on 01/09/09 at 10:45 PM

The element you are missing here is Tony Burke did not approve the pulpmill’s construction, the Labor Governmemt cabinet did that on the advice of Peter Garrett, Minister for Industrial Development.

Its not to excuse Burke’s actions in promoting this particular company with questionable and dated data.

However the bigger picture has to be looked at to understand the modern former party of Labor.

Like the Bartlett and Howard government that we all experienced this Party is a blantant front for vested and special interest groups, taking direction from industry.

The failure of this would have seen a native forest fed pulpmill, only community action has caused that beast to retreat into its lair, and a completely incompetent company driven approach to the leaking oil field off WA.

Posted by phill Parsons on 02/09/09 at 06:29 AM

BURKE by name,BERK by nature.just listen to his spiel on how great chinas contaminated vegies are.well eatem up berk.

Posted by crud on 03/09/09 at 02:21 PM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before you submit your comment, please make sure that it complies with Tasmanian Times Code of Conduct.